Northumbria UK TDA closes airstrips
Thread Starter
Northumbria UK TDA closes airstrips
I don’t normally link to rival forum sites but this deserves the widest audience and a strong response
Not against UAV development but integration not segregation should be the way forward
https://flyer.co.uk/severe-and-negat...da-goes-ahead/
Not against UAV development but integration not segregation should be the way forward
https://flyer.co.uk/severe-and-negat...da-goes-ahead/
Top Answer
13th Aug 2023, 13:06
I have posted before about these trials which are easy to masquerade as life saving NHS work. In fact I can think of very very few clinical reasons for such drones. Correction, I can think of absolutely none on the mainland. We simply do not need many urgent interhospital transfers of small items - we move teams of doctors and patients themselves. I worry the so called trial seems to be about whether you can put some item in a drone from A to B which isnt difficult but fails to demonstrate or even investigate any benefit.
I find it interesting that the company was set up by trainee doctors, not always the brightest sparks outside medicine itself, and that they intend to transport radioactive sources. What happens if the cargo gets lost or gets into the hands of a child? Oh, and the need for 'medical documentation' is farcical as we are all paperless. It makes me suspect this is a vanity project and of course the local administrators will love claiming to have their own drone (at no cost) whilst patients queue around the block
My take is this is an unnecessary diversion from the failings of the NHS, wont help patients and should be opposed even BEFORE considering the harm to GA
I find it interesting that the company was set up by trainee doctors, not always the brightest sparks outside medicine itself, and that they intend to transport radioactive sources. What happens if the cargo gets lost or gets into the hands of a child? Oh, and the need for 'medical documentation' is farcical as we are all paperless. It makes me suspect this is a vanity project and of course the local administrators will love claiming to have their own drone (at no cost) whilst patients queue around the block
My take is this is an unnecessary diversion from the failings of the NHS, wont help patients and should be opposed even BEFORE considering the harm to GA
This is a topic that isn't going away, and I think these NHS trials will be used as a Trojan horse to prove the way for commercial operations - here's a link to a map of projects that this one company are promoting.
Of particular interest to us in the north is the proposal for the intra-Trust delivery of nuclear medicines for North Cumbria integrated care NHS Foundation Trust which could well abutt the Northumbria plan potentially creating a coast to coast TDA - a modern Hadrians wall!
Apian - drone projects
Of particular interest to us in the north is the proposal for the intra-Trust delivery of nuclear medicines for North Cumbria integrated care NHS Foundation Trust which could well abutt the Northumbria plan potentially creating a coast to coast TDA - a modern Hadrians wall!
Apian - drone projects
Scroll down for the link-up area. https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/Pub...alArea?pID=456
(Potentially affected area).
I've often wondered what my mum did with my cowboy outfit.
(Potentially affected area).
I've often wondered what my mum did with my cowboy outfit.
Scroll down for the link-up area. https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/Pub...alArea?pID=456
(Potentially affected area).
(Potentially affected area).
I'm very familiar with the 'not above 1500 feet' route up past Newcastle.. Just pointing out the extension up to Berwick. Also affecting airfields such as Eshott. Let us hope that the CAA doesn't slide into the Virtue Signalling trap. Thus avoiding the 'CAA bans Mercy Drone flights' headlines.
This seems to be a mjaor grab of airspace for little purpose except commercial profit. NHS deliveries in this area are readily done by road. Whiule the Western Isles trial could be justified for accessabilty reasons,this has none of that.
Alos I note that the earlier claim that drones would be operating below normal air traffic altitudes are now disappearing. Additionally the claim that adding more conspicuity devices would make air avoidance by drones easier also seems to have been forgotten. Once again, people are lying to us.
As an occasional [ast user of that low level corridor (in a vintage machine), I shall object, naturally. Considerably increased risk to no purpose. Why not keep the drones very low over the water ? - or push them above the ~1,000ft typically used by the folk going through the low level corridor.
Fairly dreadful restrictions for those airfields to the West of Newcastle too.
Alos I note that the earlier claim that drones would be operating below normal air traffic altitudes are now disappearing. Additionally the claim that adding more conspicuity devices would make air avoidance by drones easier also seems to have been forgotten. Once again, people are lying to us.
As an occasional [ast user of that low level corridor (in a vintage machine), I shall object, naturally. Considerably increased risk to no purpose. Why not keep the drones very low over the water ? - or push them above the ~1,000ft typically used by the folk going through the low level corridor.
Fairly dreadful restrictions for those airfields to the West of Newcastle too.
The following 3 users liked this post by biscuit74:
I have posted before about these trials which are easy to masquerade as life saving NHS work. In fact I can think of very very few clinical reasons for such drones. Correction, I can think of absolutely none on the mainland. We simply do not need many urgent interhospital transfers of small items - we move teams of doctors and patients themselves. I worry the so called trial seems to be about whether you can put some item in a drone from A to B which isnt difficult but fails to demonstrate or even investigate any benefit.
I find it interesting that the company was set up by trainee doctors, not always the brightest sparks outside medicine itself, and that they intend to transport radioactive sources. What happens if the cargo gets lost or gets into the hands of a child? Oh, and the need for 'medical documentation' is farcical as we are all paperless. It makes me suspect this is a vanity project and of course the local administrators will love claiming to have their own drone (at no cost) whilst patients queue around the block
My take is this is an unnecessary diversion from the failings of the NHS, wont help patients and should be opposed even BEFORE considering the harm to GA
I find it interesting that the company was set up by trainee doctors, not always the brightest sparks outside medicine itself, and that they intend to transport radioactive sources. What happens if the cargo gets lost or gets into the hands of a child? Oh, and the need for 'medical documentation' is farcical as we are all paperless. It makes me suspect this is a vanity project and of course the local administrators will love claiming to have their own drone (at no cost) whilst patients queue around the block
My take is this is an unnecessary diversion from the failings of the NHS, wont help patients and should be opposed even BEFORE considering the harm to GA
The following 12 users liked this post by Radgirl:
I have posted before about these trials which are easy to masquerade as life saving NHS work. In fact I can think of very very few clinical reasons for such drones. Correction, I can think of absolutely none on the mainland. We simply do not need many urgent interhospital transfers of small items - we move teams of doctors and patients themselves. I worry the so called trial seems to be about whether you can put some item in a drone from A to B which isnt difficult but fails to demonstrate or even investigate any benefit.
I find it interesting that the company was set up by trainee doctors, not always the brightest sparks outside medicine itself, and that they intend to transport radioactive sources. What happens if the cargo gets lost or gets into the hands of a child? Oh, and the need for 'medical documentation' is farcical as we are all paperless. It makes me suspect this is a vanity project and of course the local administrators will love claiming to have their own drone (at no cost) whilst patients queue around the block
My take is this is an unnecessary diversion from the failings of the NHS, wont help patients and should be opposed even BEFORE considering the harm to GA
I find it interesting that the company was set up by trainee doctors, not always the brightest sparks outside medicine itself, and that they intend to transport radioactive sources. What happens if the cargo gets lost or gets into the hands of a child? Oh, and the need for 'medical documentation' is farcical as we are all paperless. It makes me suspect this is a vanity project and of course the local administrators will love claiming to have their own drone (at no cost) whilst patients queue around the block
My take is this is an unnecessary diversion from the failings of the NHS, wont help patients and should be opposed even BEFORE considering the harm to GA
If you are bored enough to find the time to wade through the typical Green inferred waffle in the 24 page submission ,you might find yourself wondering how many so called extra taxi deliveries would equal the cost of acquisition, operator training and maintenance of what would no doubt be very expensive kit.
This seems to me to be yet another project that would fail a reality check whilst pandering to the section of society that thinks that it has all the answers to
the failings of the modern world. If you want to use drones usefully ,take them to the parts of the world where transport is a REAL challenge.
The following 3 users liked this post by shed26:
As I stated earlier, I suspect that the NHS is a soft target (what NHS "Director of Innovation" wouldn't want something for nothing and also a sexy drone trial on their CV?) and that this a foot in the door for future commercial operations. Is it just a coincidence that it's in an area with a relatively small GA community - but get the concept proved and where next?
If you do want to object, previous experience on the smaller scale trial on the Northumberland coast suggested that challenging the purpose of the trial got short shrift, so concentrating on the impact on the aviation community may have more effect
If you do want to object, previous experience on the smaller scale trial on the Northumberland coast suggested that challenging the purpose of the trial got short shrift, so concentrating on the impact on the aviation community may have more effect
Last edited by SWBKCB; 15th Aug 2023 at 09:50.
I put a response into the submission last week and got this response back from Apian:
The proposed "skygrab" is, in my view, disproportionate and the absence of a DACS / DAAIS is completely incogruent with effective and safe aviation activites in the North East.
"Thank you very much for responding with feedback on our proposal. We appreciate the time it has taken to read the material and the constructive feedback you have provided. We would be more than happy to meet and discuss this with you, but in the meantime, we have addressed your points below.
As previous air traffic controllers we have knowledge of and appreciate the restrictions you might face when flying, and getting a perspective from a pilot who flies in the local area is extremely important. Your feedback will help us continue the airspace change process by taking into consideration the feedback we have received to develop a more refined airspace.
Our intention is to work with the local GA community, including any local airfields or airstrips, to explore the possibility of operations working alongside each other. We, like the CAA and as I’m sure you do, believe that being able to share the airspace is ultimately the best solution for all stakeholders and this is a step along that path. We have previously successfully demonstrated working in close proximity to microgliding and gliding clubs, and believe we could work with you and the broader GA community to achieve the same in this trial.
Our proposal outlines the tops of the TDA must be represented in AMSL as accordance with ICAO Annex 11 2.30.2. Subject to approval, the UAS operator will be conducting operations below 600ft AGL, we will continue to evaluate the airspace requested for operations to ensure that the minimum airspace is being requested.
Your feedback regarding the DACS and DAAIS is also extremely helpful and we will continue to re-evaluate this requirement based on feedback from the aviation community and refinement of the proposed airspace.
Regarding NOTAMs in our previous trial, these were cancelled by the UAS operator directly when we did not anticipate flying. As per the NOTAM process, these were cancelled through the Airspace Regulation (Utilisation) Operations team at the CAA, who communicate them to the aviation industry. Cancellations of usage for the TDA were due to daily limitations (i.e. weather), which is why cancellations were not seen in advance as we utilised the TDA to complete as many deliveries, and capture as much data for the NHS as possible. Thank you for your suggestion of sharing more detailed utilisation, this is shared with the regulator on completion of the project. We will consider how best to share this with the GA and wider aviation community.
Current regulations mean that we are required to apply for a TDA, however, we would like to emphasise that we do not see this as a long-term solution and are working in collaboration with the CAA to support the development of integrated airspace that allows equitable use for all airspace users. Our UAS operator intends to seek CAA guidance on compliantly deploying detect and avoid technology to remove the need for segregated airspace, in line with the Airspace Modernisation Strategy.
We would like to thank you once again for your feedback, and confirm that this will be reviewed by our aviation team, and shared with the CAA as part of our submission."
As previous air traffic controllers we have knowledge of and appreciate the restrictions you might face when flying, and getting a perspective from a pilot who flies in the local area is extremely important. Your feedback will help us continue the airspace change process by taking into consideration the feedback we have received to develop a more refined airspace.
Our intention is to work with the local GA community, including any local airfields or airstrips, to explore the possibility of operations working alongside each other. We, like the CAA and as I’m sure you do, believe that being able to share the airspace is ultimately the best solution for all stakeholders and this is a step along that path. We have previously successfully demonstrated working in close proximity to microgliding and gliding clubs, and believe we could work with you and the broader GA community to achieve the same in this trial.
Our proposal outlines the tops of the TDA must be represented in AMSL as accordance with ICAO Annex 11 2.30.2. Subject to approval, the UAS operator will be conducting operations below 600ft AGL, we will continue to evaluate the airspace requested for operations to ensure that the minimum airspace is being requested.
Your feedback regarding the DACS and DAAIS is also extremely helpful and we will continue to re-evaluate this requirement based on feedback from the aviation community and refinement of the proposed airspace.
Regarding NOTAMs in our previous trial, these were cancelled by the UAS operator directly when we did not anticipate flying. As per the NOTAM process, these were cancelled through the Airspace Regulation (Utilisation) Operations team at the CAA, who communicate them to the aviation industry. Cancellations of usage for the TDA were due to daily limitations (i.e. weather), which is why cancellations were not seen in advance as we utilised the TDA to complete as many deliveries, and capture as much data for the NHS as possible. Thank you for your suggestion of sharing more detailed utilisation, this is shared with the regulator on completion of the project. We will consider how best to share this with the GA and wider aviation community.
Current regulations mean that we are required to apply for a TDA, however, we would like to emphasise that we do not see this as a long-term solution and are working in collaboration with the CAA to support the development of integrated airspace that allows equitable use for all airspace users. Our UAS operator intends to seek CAA guidance on compliantly deploying detect and avoid technology to remove the need for segregated airspace, in line with the Airspace Modernisation Strategy.
We would like to thank you once again for your feedback, and confirm that this will be reviewed by our aviation team, and shared with the CAA as part of our submission."
Copied from the Northern Aviators Facebook group:
ACP-2023-015 Apian Northumbria NHS Air Grid - Feedback event
We are inviting members of the aviation community to a feedback session to be held at Wansbeck Hospital on 24th August 2023, 5-7pm. The purpose of this session is to discuss and gather feedback on the ACP-2023-015 airspace change process. Members of the aviation and healthcare teams at Apian, along with representatives from the NHS and the drone operator will be present to listen and answer questions where possible.
The event is free and open to all, but attendance must be confirmed in advance. Please email [email protected] to book a place by the end of Wednesday 23rd August.
If you are interested in the event but unable to attend then please email us anyway and we will inform you of the details of future events (virtual or in-person). Formal written responses to the airspace change process using the form are of course also very welcome, and we have received lots of useful and constructive feedback so far.
Thank you, and look forward to meeting you on the day.
Aviation team
Apian
We are inviting members of the aviation community to a feedback session to be held at Wansbeck Hospital on 24th August 2023, 5-7pm. The purpose of this session is to discuss and gather feedback on the ACP-2023-015 airspace change process. Members of the aviation and healthcare teams at Apian, along with representatives from the NHS and the drone operator will be present to listen and answer questions where possible.
The event is free and open to all, but attendance must be confirmed in advance. Please email [email protected] to book a place by the end of Wednesday 23rd August.
If you are interested in the event but unable to attend then please email us anyway and we will inform you of the details of future events (virtual or in-person). Formal written responses to the airspace change process using the form are of course also very welcome, and we have received lots of useful and constructive feedback so far.
Thank you, and look forward to meeting you on the day.
Aviation team
Apian
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
In a word 'Yes'!- it blocks the 'Hexham gap' to the west of the NCL CTA and the coastal route to the east of the NCL CTA. The same company are also proposing a TDA covering northern Cumbria, which could block a west coast routing
Apprently im too new to post either links or images (sigh), but if you go to
airspacechange.caa.co.uk/documents/download/5891
you can find the picture on page 14.
airspacechange.caa.co.uk/documents/download/5891
you can find the picture on page 14.
Last edited by ChecksD; 20th Aug 2023 at 07:35.
If you do want to object, previous experience on the smaller scale trial on the Northumberland coast suggested that challenging the purpose of the trial got short shrift, so concentrating on the impact on the aviation community may have more effect
What precisely is a 'microgliding' club?
This after they have said 'as previous air traffic controllers we have knowledge....'
Obviously they do NOT have knowledge.
The point is, 'microgliding' is not an accepted aviation term yet here is a so-called professional 'inventing' a previously unheard of term for inclusion in a legal document.
'microgliding' is not an accepted aviation term